Disney Animated Canon thread: Speedrun edition

[Sabrblade]

I kinda prefer the idea that Anastasia's segment in 2 happened after the fairy godmother lost her wand in 3 (even if it was after a year). Would hurt too much with Lady Tremaine broke up Anastasia and the Baker after they got together already. Getting the wand erased the original timeline meeting, yes, but the new timeline still allowed for the meet to happen, but much much sooner.

The thing is, 3 ends with Lady Tremaine and Drizella reduced to servants as punishment for their crimes, while Anastasia got redeemed and forgiven. The Anastasia segment in 2 begins with her back with her mother and sister and all three still living their own normal lives without any consequences from their actions in 3.

Of course, this is because 3 didn't exist yet at the time, but it's still incompatible.

However, the ending credits of 3 imply that Anastasia in the new timeline will go on to still meet the baker again, since he shows up with her in one part of the end credits.

 

[The Mighty Mollusk]

I never thought I'd go cross-eyed trying to keep up with Disney canon, but wow, here we are.

 

[Fero McPigletron]

Marvel is Disney now soooo let's talk about the time travel in Avengers Endgame?

Kidding, hehe

 

[Sabrblade]

Anyway, on the subject of Snow White's character, this video provides some really good insight in the hows and whys behind the way she was portrayed in her movie, and how all that was relevant to the era in which the movie was first released (as in, the Great Depression):

 

[Sjogre]

Lady and the Tramp 1955

First Seen: Early childhood.

It's... This is pretty much a bog-standard romance plot, except most of the characters are dogs. Not a lot to talk about.

Oh, it isn't based on a fairy tale or preexisting work, so there's that.

It's also not really a musical, something that surprised me, in retrospect. Okay, there's a few songs, but they're pretty minor, and have very low-key sequences. Short, too.

Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure 2001

First Seen: First iteration of this thread.

Okay, this one is a proper musical, and starts with an actual musical number, with choreography and everything. To it's credit, the opening number at least tries to fit the time and setting. It does not at all sound like the songs from the Pan or Bambi sequels. Are those the only two with that song style, or are there more to come?

Still not sure whether the puppy with the white collar is supposed to be a girl or a boy. The three are collectively referred to as ladies a couple of times, but that sounded an awful lot like a boy voice, and they didn't act like their sisters.

Apparently, she's named Danielle, but I don't recall any of the sisters being named in the movie. Kind of annoying.

This movie has a lot more characters than the first one, but I'd be hard pressed to say that it uses them all well. Scamp's siblings are probably the biggest example, but Lady is barely a character.

Also, kind of ignores that Lady was a rambunctious pup, too. She acted more like Scamp than like her daughters.

A lot of the Renaissance films have a theme of the main character desperately wanting more out of life. I can't recall any of them saying that what they want is kinda dumb. Mind you, none of them wanted to run away from a stable home life.

This sequel is... Maybe a little sillier, but it also shifts to being an outright romantic comedy, so it feels more natural. Aside from the Barney Fife(?) guy as the dogcatcher. I'm old enough to tell that there was a reference, but I'm not old enough to be sure what it was.

Basically the entire movie happened because Lady and Tramp couldn't be bothered to tell Scamp about Tramp's past. I kind of hate it when a story revolves around parents not being willing to tell their child about their past. I'm honestly debating whether I'll watch the first Mermaid sequel because it's even worse about it.

Sleeping Beauty 1959

First Seen: First iteration of this thread.

Live action storybook opening. I don't think that this is the last, but not many more coming.

I was honestly surprised when I realized that I hadn't seen this movie until I started watching it for the thread. It's my favorite of the classic Princess movies, and while I'm terrible at picking favorites in general, I like it a lot more than I expected.

Part of that is because this is a remarkably pretty movie. None of the films since Bambi have really pushed the envelope when it comes animation and art, with even Cinderella being more a return to form than an improvement.

This one, though. Dang. It's easily the prettiest animated movie Disney had put out to date. The detail is incredible and the art style has the environments be just a bit surreal and dreamlike, and everything surrounding Maleficent is incredible.

So, obviously, it was another flop. Okay, it was the second most successful movie released that year, technically, but it was also hella expensive. Gonna be a while before I see another Disney movie this pretty.

Disney's adaptations tend to go pretty far afield. While the events might be fairly standard to the fairy tale, aside from skipping the hundred years' sleep, this version follows the perspective of the three good fairies.

It apparently wasn't deliberate, but the three of them are definitely the main characters of the finished film. They don't get much press for it, although they are actually really active main characters, doing pretty much everything. I guess two older ladies and one not-as-old lady just aren't as marketable.

People sometimes say that King Tristan should have invited Maleficent to blunt her anger and oblige her to behave. Yeah, no, that would not have worked. We all know what Maleficent is about, and she revels in it. At best, at absolute best, she would have handed out a blessing that had a terrible downside. More likely, she would have done something like "bless" Aurora with a short life.

And snubbing Maleficent might have insulted her, but inviting her would have insulted everyone else. She ain't friends with the Good Fairies, and I can't imagine that the mortal guests would have enjoyed having the Mistress of All Evil along, either. Oh, and I don't know in what world it sounds like a good idea to invite the Mistress of All Evil into your home, but it wasn't the world of this movie.

When Maleficent cursed Aurora, she did so under the excuse that it was a gift. If she'd actually been invited, she'd have been more free to act.

Heck, even the good fairies could be kind of dangerous to mortals; Flora's first plan to protect Aurora was to turn her into a flower, and that plan was shot down because Maleficent would send a frost to kill her. Not, y'know, because most humans would consider being turned into a flower kind of a terrible fate.

There is a lot to like here, even outside Maleficent. Phillip's snarky horse, the two kings getting drunk, all the interplay between the three good fairies. Well worth watching.

 

[Fero McPigletron]

Hmm, is Maleficent the first official Disney dragon? Are there even others? (Like Raya and the Last Dragon, haha)

Cuz I remember loving the final fight, with the fairies giving prince whatsisname his awesome weapons.

Felt sorry for the poor crow though.

---
Saw Alice in Wonderland on Disney+ and, yeeeeah, it was just nonsense strung together. I can't believe it's a beloved classic.

 

[Sabrblade]

Sleeping Beauty 1959

This movie did get a sequel. It just wasn't called "Sleeping Beauty 2" or whatever.

It was the first half of the "Disney Princess Enchanted Tales: Follow Your Dreams" DVD special (the second half was a third Aladdin sequel).

It's pretty bad, though. But maybe you'll find it entertainingly bad or something.

Though, save the second half for when you review the Aladdin movies.

 

[Pocket]

Lady and the Tramp II was the first Disney sequel that actually annoyed me with its lazy casting, particularly the title characters, who sound nothing like their 1950s counterparts. (I even know who would have been perfect for Lady: Kate Hutchison, who played the librarian on Arthur.)

Oh, and a fun bit of trivia: The songs were composed by Actual Famous Singer-Songwriter™ Melissa Manchester, who Disney fans might know from her brief role in The Great Mouse Detective.

 

[Sabrblade]

(I even know who would have been perfect for Lady: Kate Hutchison, who played the librarian on Arthur.)

Doesn't Disney usually use actors who are based in LA? Arthur's voice cast was New York/Toronto-based.

 

[Sjogre]

I hadn't heard about the sort-of sequel to Sleeping Beauty until I had started Dalmatians. I'd already reserved the right to skip sequels, but I might catch it when I get to Aladdin.

101 Dalmatians 1961

First Seen: Early childhood.

It's not as stark as the difference between Bambi and the package films, but the animation isn't quite as pretty, overall. Mind you, animated all those spots was technically impressive, and this movie is when Disney started using something called xerography, which resulted in the scratchy outlines for the next decade and a half.

An actual animation historian would probably have a lot more to say about xerography, but I'm just noting the changes in technology.

Overall, it's a fun movie, if rather low-stakes compared to the previous. Not really a musical, though, with only one number that I'm not sure if I should count.

This is probably the most faithful adaptation Disney has done up to this point in the canon, with it being more streamlined than really changed.

The change that sticks out the most is what was done with Cruella. She's drawn with a down-right corpse-like appearance but is otherwise a normal human, while the book character was an attractive woman that was implied to actually have fiendish ancestry.

This movie got a live-action adaption before Disney started remaking all their animated classics, and that movie even got it's own sequel. I'm not watching them as part of this instance of the thread, but they were fun. Glen Close had a blast as Cruella, and her outfits were great. Haven't seen Cruella with Emma Stone, but I've heard that it's good, if not at all close to the original story.

101 Dalmatians II: Patch's London Adventure 2003

First Seen: First instance of this thread.

I've mentioned when the cash-grab sequels are sillier than the original movies. This isn't a complaint, exactly; I'm just remarking on a change in tone. While pretty much all of the sequels so far have been at least a little sillier, they've (generally) been serious when they needed to be, so it's at least not a problem, and sometimes used to their advantage.

If the previous cash-grab sequels have been a notch sillier, this one is two notches, three if Cruella is around. The film realizes that the premise involves Cruella and her henchmen being outmaneuvered by a literal puppy on multiple occasions, and set the tone appropriately. Which is to say, total clownshoes.

This movie is goofy as hyuk, and it works pretty dang well.

It's serious when it does need to be, but that's not when Cruella is around. It's a fun comedy, if a bit childish, and probably my second favorite of the cash-grab sequels so far, with the writing managing to make up for the underwhelming animation.

Yeah. The animation is straight-up worse than a movie forty-two years it's senior. I wouldn't call it bad, but it's... definitely TV rather than movie quality.

For the curious, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual sequel to the book, which is infamous for being oddly cosmic.

The Sword and the Stone 1936

First Seen: Early childhood.

Storybook opening. I really should actually keep track of which ones have them.

Huhn. At first, I thought that the sequels had a more jocular tone because they weren't confident that they could hold their audience without inserting a lot of jokes, but now I'm wondering if they were emulating the tone of movies like this one. I think that Sword is actually the most comedic of any of the feature-length entries, so far.

Kinda makes me wonder what would happen if this got a sequel. Crank up the silliness higher, or actually keep the tone more serious?

Kinda surprised it didn't, to be honest. I haven't read The Once and Future King, but there's plenty of Arthuriana to draw upon, and it's not like Disney is a stranger to altering source content.

Merlin and Mim both sing to make their magic, but I'm not sure just how much of a musical that makes it.

Overall, I'm actually surprised at how lighthearted this movie is. Madam Mim is certainly dangerous, but I think that it'd be an exaggeration to really call her a villain. Mostly, the movie is just Arthur and Merlin having goofy misadventures.

I know that the Good Fairies gave Briar Rose a (then) modern-style dress, but I think that Merlin is the first Disney Magic Mentor to clearly reference the future. I wonder how many will?

 

[Fero McPigletron]

Ooooh I should totally watch Sword in the Stone! I don't think I've ever seen it as a whole. The squirrel part was heart breaking, sorta.

 

[ZacWilliam1]

Merlin living backwards, remembering the future and so on is from the source material so it isn't quite "breaking the fourth wall/pop culture joking" like some characters do, he is supposed to know the 20th century from his youth.

I loved Sword and the Stone as a kid, until I got older and actually read the Once and Future King and then it just made me wish there was more of the book in that movie. OAFK and it's "sequel" The Book of Merlin would have made really great slightly more serious Disney films.


-ZacWilliam, I still need to track down a version of the book with Mim in it. White rewrote that part when he published the complete volume, replacing her with some Morgan LeFey stuff IIRC and though I own several copies they are all the Mim-less versions.

 

[Fero McPigletron]

Ok, this is blowing my mind.

I'm only starting the movie and, for real?! Merlin is living backwards?! This is from the original book?

 

[Sjogre]

Merlin living backwards in time is from the book, yeah. He's tied to the concept enough that it's sometimes called Merlin Sickness.

 

[Sabrblade]

The Curious Case of Benjamin Merlin.

 

[Pocket]

I don't think that's the official explanation in the Disney version, though, since at the end he's seen returning from a time-travel trip to the 20th century. I think they just want us to assume, probably even before that point, that he's done that from time to time.

 

[Fero McPigletron]

Had to search cuz I knew there was a Disney movie thread.

Finally saw Wish. It was ok. Premise is horribly flawed. It could have been dreams instead of wishes and it would make more sense.

Didn't like the main character. Bad guy was ok. Laughed at his Disney jokes. I actually liked some of those. The seven dwarves thing was weird tho.

It was overall still bland tho. And they shouldn't have used the power of unity, friendship, singing as their final attack.